Comments Posted By ct
Displaying 11 To 13 Of 13 Comments
Kyle:
Your right about the science statement. I misspoke. Science regularly corrects itself, to be sure. My point is that it is based on tangible evidence. That evidence upholds theories which we accept ast true until new evidence proves otherwise.
The concept of a directed universe is not based on tangible evidence. Yes, there are patterns in nature, but a pattern does not dictate that it was directed by an intelligent force. I think this is where the argument is based. One side believes that the universe cannot possibly be random, therefore there is a supreme being(s) that directed it. The other side believes that it can happen randomly, that it does not need a supreme being(s) to operate, and thus God is tossed out the window ala Occam's Razor. Both arguments are based on one thing: faith. One has faith it was directed, the other has faith it was not. Neither can prove it scientifically.
"And ID is NOT necessarily or primarily about faith. It is primarily a discussion of the scientific evidence for and against the premise of random or undirected changes in life forms."
I've never heard ID used as an argument for undirected changes in life forms. The name "intelligent design" indicates that it was designed intelligently, not randomly (the argument for life without design is called "evolution"). Given that, an argument against the "undirected changes in life forms" implies that it was directed (by God or aliens or whatever). Since there is no evidence of this outside of coinicidence (which would never hold up in court, much less in science), it requires a measure of faith. A belief in a supreme being is the domain of religion. Like it or not, faith plays a very significant role in ID, as it requires one to accept the reality of something that cannot be proven (like God). Nothing wrong with that at all (I believe myself), but it is important to keep science and religion separate
On the other hand, the belief that there is no God and everything is random (the old Occam's Razor argument) requires one to believe that because things can be simple they must be simple. It assumes that Occam's Razor (the idea that the best conclusion is the simplest) is a fact, when it is just a philosophy--a sort of guiding rule. It is not absolute. So, one side says, "My religion trumps your philosophy" while the other says "my philosophy trumps your religion." Maybe ID people and athiests should go bowling together. They have a lot in common.
"There are agnostic and atheist biologists who have no difficulty whatsoever in recognizing that the currently dominant theories have more holes than substance, and could be completely wrong."
This is a very general statement. If it were truly had "more holes than substance" then scientists would reject it outright. The arguments against evolution that I have seen involve nitpicking. "This detail is wrong," or, "that detail is wrong," thus the whole theory is wrong. Of course the current theories have holes. So does theoretical physics (quantum mechanics and relativity have different views of gravity, for example). Just about every theory has holes in it. Even the law of gravity is not perfect (when you get close to the speed of light, it falls apart). We are imperfect creatures, and thus our creations (and theories) are not perfect. We try to come up with theories that work under most circumstances (any scientist will tell you that). Evolution, thus far, fits the evidence. It doesn't provide all the answers, but what theory does?
The truth is that we don't know everything about how we got here. Until someone can come up with concrete evidence that a being (or beings) directed evolution on our planet, the theory of evolution is the best scientific explanation we have. To say that ID is a scientific alternative requires proof. Without proof it is little more than a debate exercise.
Having said all of this, my tendancy is to believe there is something greater. As Joe said, "I prefer the God who set up rules, and then stepped back and let them run, maybe occasionally performing a miracle or two." I couldn't agree more. But, again, that's my faith and it should not be taught as fact to anyone (especially in school).
Comment Posted By CT On 9.11.2005 @ 18:11
I think the argument here is not whether or not ID is wrong, but whether it should be taught in school. Somewhat spiritual myself, I tend to side with ID. However, I do not believe it should be taught in school. Science is about what we know for sure. ID is about faith. It is dangerous to teach religion in school, whether that religion is the quasi religion of environmentalism or the concept of ID.
Because we don't know precisely how life began does not mean God created it, or for that matter that it came about randomly. From a scientific view point, it simply means we don't know for sure--nothing more, nothing less. It's that "I don't know" area in which religion and philosophy fill the holes. Though I personally believe a higher power had a hand in things, I understand this is the realm of religion and philosophy. Teaching this "hole filling" to students as fact is a mistake (teaching it as opinion is another matter).
JR, you said "You’ll find, however, that the physical evidence for these intermediary states can fit in a box that FedEx would ship for about 5 bucks." I'm curious as to what makes you think that. We have been finding fossil evidence for many decades now. We'd need a pretty big box for all of that evidence. Even if what you say is the case, the bible could be mailed for cheaper than five bucks, and ID wouldn't exist without it. Is your contention that the size and amount of the evidence is at all relevant to what that evidence proves? A bloody knife with finger prints can send someone to jail for the rest of their days. Does the fact that it is small mean it is not a worthy piece of evidence? Even if the bloody knife is the only piece of evidence, it can still send someone to jail just because of the evidence on it. The same goes for a handful of fossil evidence (and there is more than a handful out there).
Comment Posted By CT On 9.11.2005 @ 11:44
The media and Democrats are desperately covering the immense incompetence of Democrat politicians in Lousianna. They are throw dust in the air desperately, blaming the adults who actually have saved them and gotten the job done.
Please, Americans, stop putting liberals and Democrats in positions of power. They are corrupt and incompetent, and when something serious like this happens they run and whine and behave like juvenile delinquents.
It is time, America, to put an end to the lunacy that is the Democratic Party and their damage on the United States of America.
Comment Posted By ct On 6.09.2005 @ 02:48
